The new bomb fuzing needs to be an option.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Wutz

Forget it..............I have worked on just those type of bombs.....

Frankly, I don't believe you and i would be surprised if many here do, not because such a claim is so extraordinary, but because your post's content doesn't show it to be true.
you are using it as a prop for arguments you don't have. It makes you look silly.

Originally Posted by zaelu

I am sure not all the bombs had 2seconds delay set for detonators.

well, no bombs had a two second delay. the delay was a result of the number of revolutions the vane took.

Some 'direct' fuses used the vain to wind the hammer back, out of the bomb. both the hammer and the vain would move out, away from the bomb. Once it had wound back enough, the detonation charge would move by spring into the hole that the hammer used to occupy. The bomb is then live. On impact, the hammer would be forced back into the bomb and strike the detonator.

The hammer moves back because it is threaded like a bolt. the number of turns it takes to arm the bomb depends on the thread of the hammer and can not be adjusted.


More commonly, the vain would turn a set of gears. The gears had a ratio of either 20:1 or 60somethig:1 (I forget). The gears spin the hammer to line up with the detonator and make the bomb live. It takes one full rotation to line up the detonator (so 20 or 60sum turns of the vain). The number of turns it takes can no be adjusted.

I do not know how the electronic fuzes that became popular mid-late war worked.

As I said earlier in this thread; at the start of the war, ground crews used to turn the spinners/vanes round a few turns so that the bombs would arm more quickly for low-level attacks.

However, fuze designs where soon changed to prevent the ground crews doing this. I suppose someone thought it might be dangerous.

Originally Posted by zaelu

Also... the old "delay" in the arming screen... was it historical? No irony here... I mean... if we have the delay of arming... is it historical to have a second delay after impact?

Yes, very much so.
The delay was caused mechanically, pyrotechnically or chemically and could be set to a wide variety of times. It had nothing to do with the arming part of the fuze.

[Wutz]

Originally Posted by Letum

Frankly, I don't believe you and i would be surprised if many here do, not because such a claim is so extraordinary, but because your post's content doesn't show it to be true.
you are using it as a prop for arguments you don't have. It makes you look silly.




well, no bombs had a two second delay. the delay was a result of the number of revolutions the vane took.

Some 'direct' fuses used the vain to wind the hammer back, out of the bomb. both the hammer and the vain would move out, away from the bomb. Once it had wound back enough, the detonation charge would move by spring into the hole that the hammer used to occupy. The bomb is then live. On impact, the hammer would be forced back into the bomb and strike the detonator.

The hammer moves back because it is threaded like a bolt. the number of turns it takes to arm the bomb depends on the thread of the hammer and can not be adjusted.


More commonly, the vain would turn a set of gears. The gears had a ratio of either 20:1 or 60somethig:1 (I forget). The gears spin the hammer to line up with the detonator and make the bomb live. It takes one full rotation to line up the detonator (so 20 or 60sum turns of the vain). The number of turns it takes can no be adjusted.

I do not know how the electronic fuzes that became popular mid-late war worked.

As I said earlier in this thread; at the start of the war, ground crews used to turn the spinners/vanes round a few turns so that the bombs would arm more quickly for low-level attacks.

However, fuze designs where soon changed to prevent the ground crews doing this. I suppose someone thought it might be dangerous.



Yes, very much so.
The delay was caused mechanically, pyrotechnically or chemically and could be set to a wide variety of times. It had nothing to do with the arming part of the fuze.

Really now? Then YOU tell me what we salvaged and defused at the airbase in Memmengen? I really would like to know Mr. Smart-Alec!

[Skoshi Tiger]

Originally Posted by Wutz

Really now? Then YOU tell me what we salvaged and defused at the airbase in Memmengen? I really would like to know Mr. Smart-Alec!

I'm not sure how you did it in Memmengen, But here's the Standard bomb disposal technique in Papua New Guinea!



Notice the 'Safety' bucket over the fuse!

To be fair the bomb (500lb or 1000lb it was quite big, near Myola) was safe in the bomb bay of the plane when it ended up here and the US Team that rendered it safe were more interested in recovering the Crew from the wreckage. It had been burried but it was uncovered years later by the locals for tourist purposes.

Cheers!

[ElAurens]

Thank you Uther and Alpha for seeing my point in this.

There is nothing historical about picking a 2 second arming time, and certainly nothing historical about the arming being stopped by the bomb skipping on the water before impact with the target ship.

This is a case of making something more difficult in the misguided belief that higher difficulty always equals higher realism.

This needs to be optional, just like the new pilot health, structural damage, and engine damage selections (All of which I approve of by the way).

[Letum]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

There is nothing historical about picking a 2 second arming time, and certainly nothing historical about the arming being stopped by the bomb skipping on the water before impact with the target ship.

Whilst you are quite correct about skipping, I don't see why a two second
arming time is wrong.

It's wrong in so far as the arming is dependent on the number of revolutions
the vane must take, but two seconds sounds like a reasonable length of time
for the vane to make those rotations.

[KG26_Alpha]

The problem is the casing deciding the fusing on contact with scenery.

Velocity should decide the vane arming the bomb on release.

The vane still turns on bounce or skipping due to velocity of the bomb.

But if it was done as suggested to stop DF server airfield killing at spawn perhaps a velocity solution would be better than 2 sec arming delay ?

[Furio]

Originally Posted by KG26_Alpha

The problem is the casing deciding the fusing on contact with scenery.

Velocity should decide the vane arming the bomb on release.

The vane still turns on bounce or skipping due to velocity of the bomb.

But if it was done as suggested to stop DF server airfield killing at spawn perhaps a velocity solution would be better than 2 sec arming delay ?

+1